Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

[Ben C. Smith]

Papias, writing around 100 AD (naturally, up for debate)...

He mentions Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John & Matthew, and alludes to the fact that there are others of equal stature. To me, this is consistent with Papias being conversant with the notion of "a named group of core disciples", possibly "the twelve".

Firstly, I find this early corroboration of central Christian tradition / narrative significant. Thoughts?

What if Papias was contemporaneous with very early Christian narrative-tradition?

ie. what if it all had started mid-2nd century? say 135-150 a.d./c.e.?

What would this thesis have in its favor? What suggests it?

[MrMacSon]

Papias himself was an early storyteller, laying down foundation myths for the newly consolidating Christian movement (100-200 CE). It has been my contention for a long time that when gentile entered¹ Christian consciousness established itself in this same period, they had only the vaguest of ideas about the days before the Wars with Rome (ca. 66 - 135 CE), especially the branch of the movement centered about Jesus' physical family.

Good Morning DCH !! (well, it is here)

¹ Did you mean gentile-centered?

[MrMacSon]

Papias, writing around 100 AD (naturally, up for debate)...

He mentions Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John & Matthew, and alludes to the fact that there are others of equal stature. To me, this is consistent with Papias being conversant with the notion of "a named group of core disciples", possibly "the twelve".

Firstly, I find this early corroboration of central Christian tradition / narrative significant. Thoughts?

What if Papias was contemporaneous with very early Christian narrative-tradition?

ie. what if it all had started mid-2nd century? say 135-150 a.d./c.e.?

What would this thesis have in its favor? What suggests it?
.

This

Papias, writing around 100 AD (naturally, up for debate)...

He mentions Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John & Matthew, and alludes to the fact that there are others of equal stature. To me, this is consistent with Papias being conversant with the notion of "a named group of core disciples", possibly "the twelve".
.

and this [edited] -

Papias himself was an early storyteller, laying down foundation myths for the newly consolidating Christian movement (100-200 CE) ...

So they began to form/adopt foundation myths that allowed them to "explain away" (to themselves first, then anyone else who'd listen) the appearance that there had been a schism in the movement between the Judean core and the gentile faction. Hegesippus is another storyteller, of a later time, but a mythmaker just the same.

The difference was that Papias was relaying what he had heard from ol' timers of the 2nd generation of Jesus followers [new-timers of first generation Jesus followers], rather than [and possibly] what he had found [newly] written to date (pro'lly one or more of the gospels), while Hegesippus was spinning yarns about things he learned speaking with his hosts as he meandered his way to Rome on business, and where he remained for a while, but hyped to the max with details that I think he got from completely unrelated sources he was collecting as well.

Of course, Papias had to commit to writing what these folks relayed to him verbally, and it is unclear whether he kept a note-book or recollected the stories from memory. There would be a little spin put on them, but the traditions are closer to the sources (Jesus' disciples & apostles) than Hegesippus' sources. Heggie did keep note books which he worked up near the end of his life into the work he calls his "Memoires" but he certainly seems to have went much farther than papias did in "gilding the lily," so to speak.

DCH

eta: what if Vinzent, Beduhn, Klinghardt, Tyson and Bob Price are right, and Papias was contemporaneous with the early epistle- and book- writers ..

[John2]

Ben wrote:

What part of the temple could both (A) be called τὰ ἅγια and (B) be forbidden to everybody except for James (τούτῳ μόνῳ)?

First, here is the passage in question.

EH 2.23.6:

He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people.

Lange notes that while the expression "holy place" could be interpreted to mean "holy of holies," the fact that it was forbidden by Jewish law goes against it. Surely a Jewish Christian like Hegesippus seems to be, who revered James (whose letter teaches to observe the whole Torah), used the Gospel of the Hebrews (which is pro-Torah) and knew Hebrew (like Torah-observant Jewish Christians), would be aware of this.

This expression is falsely interpreted as designating the holiest of holies. The expression may admit of such an interpretation, but the Jewish law forbids it. The acknowledged Nazarite might probably go with the priests into the temple proper ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=zdI3A ... us&f=false

Chilton echoes the Nazirite angle:

... although Hegesippus' assertion that James could actually enter the sanctuary of the temple seems exaggerated, his acceptance of a Nazirite regime, such as Acts 21 explicitly associates him with, would account for such a remembrance of him, in that Nazirites were to be presented in the vicinity of the sanctuary where the sacrifice was offered.

https://books.google.com/books?id=T8LQq ... us&f=false

Bauckham too favors the Nazirite angle and sees the idea of the holy place being the holy of holies as entirely secondary interpretation:

Hegesippus probably meant that James, because of his ascetic sanctity and because he dressed like the priests in linen, was the only man other than the priests who was allowed to enter the holy place. But a reader of Hegesippus has thought the reference must be to the privilege of the high priest to be the only man to enter the holy of holies, once a year on the day of atonement. This interpretation was encouraged by Hegesippus' statements that what James did in the holy place was to pray for the people's forgiveness. So the opening statement of the passage quoted above from Epiphanius, Pan. 78.13 is clearly an interpretive re-writing of the first nine words of the passage just quoted from Hegesippus ... This secondary interpretation of Hegesippus therefore supposes that James was permitted to officiate on the day of atonement as only the high priest may, entering the holy of holies as if he were high priest.

https://books.google.com/books?id=OdAVD ... es&f=false

And to me what also goes the idea that Hegesippus is referring to James entering the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement is that he says James "was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God." Does this mean that James entered the Holy of Holies on more than one Yom Kippur, or that he entered the holy place (i.e. Temple) frequently? I think it is the latter, since it seems unlikely to me that James' knees would have become as hard as a camel's from praying in the Holy of Holies once a year.

And Acts 21:28 uses the same words Hegesippus uses for temple and holy place, and "holy place" does not mean the Holy of Holies there.

And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place.

[Ben C. Smith]

Papias, writing around 100 AD (naturally, up for debate)...

He mentions Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John & Matthew, and alludes to the fact that there are others of equal stature. To me, this is consistent with Papias being conversant with the notion of "a named group of core disciples", possibly "the twelve".

Firstly, I find this early corroboration of central Christian tradition / narrative significant. Thoughts?

What if Papias was contemporaneous with very early Christian narrative-tradition?

ie. what if it all had started mid-2nd century? say 135-150 a.d./c.e.?

What would this thesis have in its favor? What suggests it?
.

This

Papias, writing around 100 AD (naturally, up for debate)...

He mentions Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John & Matthew, and alludes to the fact that there are others of equal stature. To me, this is consistent with Papias being conversant with the notion of "a named group of core disciples", possibly "the twelve".
.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Papias does not show himself to be contemporaneous with these disciples. He writes of them as if they are dead and gone.

[MrMacSon]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Papias does not show himself to be contemporaneous with these disciples. He writes of them as if they are dead and gone.

OK. But what if he was later only slightly than them?

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben wrote:

What part of the temple could both (A) be called τὰ ἅγια and (B) be forbidden to everybody except for James (τούτῳ μόνῳ)?

First, here is the passage in question....

I understand everything you are saying, but you deal only with half of my question. The other half is why James alone would be allowed into this place, whatever it is.

[Ben C. Smith]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Papias does not show himself to be contemporaneous with these disciples. He writes of them as if they are dead and gone.

OK. But what if he was later only slightly than them?

Why not? But what suggests it?

[Ben C. Smith]

And to me what also goes the idea that Hegesippus is referring to James entering the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement is that he says James "was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God."

The natural counter to this is to point out that entering "the holies" (whatever that means) and entering the temple are not necessarily the same thing: "He alone was permitted to enter into the holies; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple...." The habitual part applies only to his entering into the temple/sanctuary, which practically anybody could do. Granted, he goes in alone both times....

[MrMacSon]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Papias does not show himself to be contemporaneous with these disciples. He writes of them as if they are dead and gone.

OK. But what if he was later only slightly than them?

Why not? But what suggests it?

These comments -

Schoedel writes about Papias (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 140):

• According to Irenaeus, our earliest witness, Papias was "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times," who wrote a volume in "five books" (haer. 5.33.4; quoted by Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1) ...
  
  ... Papias himself in the preface to his book distinguished the apostle John from John the presbyter and seems to have had significant contact only with John the presbyter and a certain Aristion (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-7)

Schoedel writes about the comments of Papias (op. cit., v. 5, pp. 141-142):

• What the fragments have to tell us about Mark and Matthew is information that Papias himself traces to "the presbyter" (Eus. Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15-16).

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html

I think Eusebius writes about Papias to sideline him -

Schoedel writes about Papias (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 140):

• ... Eusebius' skepticism was no doubt prompted by his distaste - perhaps a recently acquired distaste (Grant 1974) - for Papias' chiliasm and his feeling that such a theology qualified Papias for the distinction of being "a man of exceedingly small intelligence" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13) ...
  
  ... It is notable that Eusebius, in spite of his desire to discredit Papias, still places him as early as the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117); and although later dates (e.g., A.D. 130-140) have often been suggested by modern scholars

Schoedel writes about the comments of Papias (op. cit., v. 5, pp. 141-142):

• ... Eusebius separates the statements about Mark and Matthew, but they may have originally followed one another and certainly seem closely related ...
  
  ... Some have suspected that Papias did not have in mind the gospel of Mark that we know, but the arguments are tenuous [they may not be as tenuous as asserted]. On another point, Kurzinger has attempted to show that Papias was speaking not of translation from the native language of Peter but of presentation of the reports of Peter (an interpretation which he applies also to Papias' statement about Matthew); but this seems to push a rhetorical approach to Papias' terminology too far^x (Schoedel 1967: 107; Kortner 1983: 203-4). On the other hand, an interpretation in rhetorical terms is somewhat more likely when it comes to the suggestion that Papias meant to say that Peter spoke "in chria-style" rather than "as needs (chriai) dictated."

[indent]^x Perhaps not[/indent]


and lastly [italics and underlining mine, of course] -

Schoedel writes about the comments of Papias (op. cit., v. 5, pp. 141-142)

• ... But the point that is debated more than any other is what Papias had in mind when he said that Mark did not write "in order." It is perhaps most likely that Papias was measuring Mark by Matthew (who is said by Papias to have made "an ordered arrangement" of the materials) - or perhaps more generally by Papias' own conception of what ought to be included in such an account - and that he had in mind 'completeness of information' [as he had it] as well as "order" in the narrow sense of the term. In any event, Papias is defending Mark in spite of perceived deficiencies.

Papias attests the role that oral tradition continued to play in the first half of the second century. Papias himself preferred "the living voice" to what could be found in books. Nevertheless, Papias seems to have known the Gospels, and he provides the earliest tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of Mark. The testimony of Papias concerning Matthew is more problematic. Eusebius says that Papias also "made use of testimonies from the first letter of John and likewise from that of Peter" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.17).